Colorado Announces Plans to Release “30 to 50” Gray Wolves Along the State’s Western Slope

[Sytes]

Not the point I was making, PETA is definitively a liberal leaning org, but that doesn’t mean that hunting is going to disappear in states with a liberal majority.

Mass has a liberal majority and very strict gun laws… we can hunt bears, coyotes, etc…

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, you get to a point of diminishing return quickly. Easy to get wolves introduced, the idea you’d ban elk hunting is a total joke.

Speaking on topic. Not stretching beyond.

Follow the money for the extreme environmentalists, i.e. Center for BS Diversity is not driven by conservative support, who shared with the funding to gain the 1% vote to succeed.

Colorado Voters Approve Reintroduction of Gray Wolves

Center for Biological Diversity: DENVER— An unprecedented state ballot initiative requiring wildlife officials to reintroduce endangered gray wolves in Colorado passed Tuesday’s election with a 20,000-vote majority and hundreds of pro-wolf precincts left to be counted. Opponents conceded today...

biologicaldiversity.org

"This is a great victory for wolves coming on the heels of Trump’s illegal action to remove federal protection, and it will help restore the natural balance in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains,” said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The people of the Colorado have helped turn the page on a brutal chapter of our history that saw wolves exterminated across the West.”"

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Speaking on topic. Not stretching beyond.

Follow the money for the extreme environmentalists, i.e. Center for BS Diversity is not driven by conservative support, who shared with the funding to gain the 1% vote to succeed.

Colorado Voters Approve Reintroduction of Gray Wolves

Center for Biological Diversity: DENVER— An unprecedented state ballot initiative requiring wildlife officials to reintroduce endangered gray wolves in Colorado passed Tuesday’s election with a 20,000-vote majority and hundreds of pro-wolf precincts left to be counted. Opponents conceded today...

biologicaldiversity.org

"This is a great victory for wolves coming on the heels of Trump’s illegal action to remove federal protection, and it will help restore the natural balance in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains,” said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The people of the Colorado have helped turn the page on a brutal chapter of our history that saw wolves exterminated across the West.”"

Not sure what your point is…

The quote at the bottom is my point exactly, that is the wining narrative.

The alternative should be wolves are migrating into the state on their own and CPW which manages all the rest of the states wildlife should manage them as well.

But, the opposing narrative that I heard most often was tantamount to F-them wolves which obviously wasn’t compelling. That or “them commie liberals are coming for our guns and heritage.”

 

[Sytes]

Point being @HONEYBADGER relayed the political spectrum for extreme environmental organizations and the continuous actions to harm hunting opportunities in other States.
I brought his comment and your disagreement back to this thread's topic.
The organizational funding to get this to the ballot and pass is not based on conservative $$$.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Point being @HONEYBADGER relayed the political spectrum for extreme environmental organizations and the continuous actions to harm hunting opportunities in other States.
I brought his comment and your disagreement back to this thread's topic.
The organizational funding to get this to the ballot and pass is not based on conservative $$$.

This is why the ballot measure passed, I guess to your point this is what “conservatives” fund.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Easy to get wolves introduced, the idea you’d ban elk hunting is a total joke.

Doesn’t need to be outright banned. Lack of predator — including wolf — management will help take care of elk numbers. Then hunters in liberal states instead start hunting in other states.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

A lot of that is perception and a lack of understanding of wildlife management.

Including predator management

 

[Sytes]

This is why the ballot measure passed, I guess to your point this is what “conservatives” fund.



View attachment 272959

Sure... Whatever floats your boat, buddy.

The vast majority of conservative $'s went towards organizations that declared the same as you and I... they're here already. No need to force a reintroduction.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

PLEASE, take them from Wyoming. We sure can spare 50 or 100 or 200.

Oregon is what Colorado needs to keep in mind when trying to manage wolves. And do a lot better than what Oregon has done (or intentionally not done).

We had a moose population start to establish but wolves nipped that in the bud. There are still some moose, but not close to the numbers they should be.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sure... Whatever floats your boat, buddy.

The vast majority of conservative $'s went towards organizations that declared the same as you and I... they're here already. No need to force a reintroduction.

RMEF has some of the stupidest anti wolf adds bar none, so agree to disagree.

Hunters and hunting orgs suck at the rhetoric game.

“Wolves eat elk, deer, and moose ”

To which your average person says … duh what’s the problem.

 

[BuzzH]

49.09% v 50.91%....

Makes me wonder if citizen initiative ballots should hold some degree such as a 60-70% "Supermajority" setting as some States require.

In general, to overcome the red v blue trench warfare.
Not that this woof issue is red v blue. In general though, to assure a visible majority is present would enhance the value of such a ballot.

Bad idea, for all kinds of good reasons.

 

[BuzzH]

Sure, and Conservatives aren't a monolith for moving fed land to states...

Then they should remove stating EXACTLY that from their platform.

Your hair would be on fire (can't blame you) if the D's had a statement that they want to end all hunting on their platform, but conveniently give a pass to R's on their position regarding public land transfer.

 

[BuzzH]

Point being @HONEYBADGER relayed the political spectrum for extreme environmental organizations and the continuous actions to harm hunting opportunities in other States.
I brought his comment and your disagreement back to this thread's topic.
The organizational funding to get this to the ballot and pass is not based on conservative $$$.

Conservatives should pay attention and start putting their money, and a better narrative, where their mouths are...if only obviously.

Instead of spending money on culture wars they should spend it on things/issues that matter. Novel idea there.

 

[hank4elk]

Interesting.
Wonder how this works with the so called Mexican Grey Wolf being reintroduced into AZ & NM.
I was told they would be kept south of US40 . One reason was the Grey wolf of northern US would wipe out any little Mexican wolves. They never intermixed before either.
The Mex wolves have been shot north of 40 for years now by the Wolf patrol of G&F or something.
The Northern Grey has been moving south for years. Now they want to plant them right next to where they have been trying to recover the so called Mexican wolf.

I still don't understand how a part domestic dog was listed as a pure wolf to reintroduce in the 1st place.

So what battle will the total huggers choose? Northern or Mexican to put full effort into and for what purpose?
YT videos of Northern wolves tearing apart Mexican wolves?

Lets bring back grizzlies to the SW too. The videos will be gold.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Conservatives should pay attention and start putting their money, and a better narrative, where their mouths are...if only obviously.

Instead of spending money on culture wars they should spend it on things/issues that matter. Novel idea there.

Sadly my bank account has a few less zeroes than Bloomberg’s, et al., but I’ll try.

As an aside, it may be that many “conservatives” are instead spending their money to hunt in “good hunting” states……. Then residents get irritated, understandably so. Didn't I see a post a while back by “someone” saying they’d try to help reduce NR tags in WY?

Regardless, blaming “conservative” hunters for not spending enough money to lobby (?) and stem the tide in liberal states, misunderstands reality. Majority rule on whatever hot button issue, and “ballot box biology” is what’s happening (funded in part with out of state money).

 

[HONEYBADGER]

Not the point I was making, PETA is definitively a liberal leaning org, but that doesn’t mean that hunting is going to disappear in states with a liberal majority.

Mass has a liberal majority and very strict gun laws… we can hunt bears, coyotes, etc…

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, you get to a point of diminishing return quickly. Easy to get wolves introduced, the idea you’d ban elk hunting is a total joke.

Not a joke in Oregon...

 

[BuzzH]

Sadly my bank account has a few less zeroes than Bloomberg’s, et al., but I’ll try.

As an aside, it may be that many “conservatives” are instead spending their money to hunt in “good hunting” states……. Then residents get irritated, understandably so. Didn't I see a post a while back by “someone” saying they’d try to help reduce NR tags in WY?

Regardless, blaming “conservative” hunters for not spending enough money to lobby (?) and stem the tide in liberal states, misunderstands reality. Majority rule on whatever hot button issue, and “ballot box biology” is what’s happening (funded in part with out of state money).

Like I said, conservatives need to pay attention on how you go about things.

Read what @wllm said, you have to control the narrative on these issues. You control the narrative, have the better message, the money will follow. So will the support of the voters.

Are you telling me that with over 100 years of successful wildlife management, wildlife restoration, wildlife conservation, etc. that the best message that the Conservatives can come up with is, "smoke a pack a day"?

Plus, the way you beat the wealthy in the money game is collectively. You know, the way that we raised 120K for the corner crossing issue.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I disagree, even in California there has been push back against predator bans there was a recent bill to ban bear hunting that was dropped by the senator that introduced it, further “liberals” or dems aren’t a monolith just like conservatives aren’t. There are a lot of liberals who hunt.

Polls show that most Americans agree with hunting ungulates, but don’t with hunting predators. A lot of that is perception and a lack of understanding of wildlife management. Again made worse by rhetoric like smoke a pack a day. People do vote on emotions, and when people act like caricatures of themselves or political stances they fuel negative emotions.

The California example is but one single data point and with the political landscape there, that battle isn’t over. We will continue to see predator hunting bans in legislation and on ballots in blue dominated states. Anti hunting factions see blue majorities in many western states as an opportunity long term to re-write wildlife management practices and exclude hunters. But they may have overplayed their hand, at least for now. Totally expect to see some type of predator hunting ban on the ballot in 2024 in Colorado. I agree that hunters at times have an image problem but I believe you are totally overplaying the marketing and influence power of the “smoke a pack a day” crowd. What really won the day for the wolf ballot initiative in Colorado was the incredible amount of resources that poured in from national animal rights groups and environmental organizations including liberal mega donors. To BuzzH’s point the wolf folks had a brilliant narrative to draw in that out of state support. Hunters were caught flat footed and playing catch-up. The only real solution for hunters is to make anti-hunting measures a political “third rail”, completely unacceptable and radioactive for any politician from either party, even in the most liberal states. Recent legislation, ballot initiatives, and wildlife commission actions in CA, WA, OR, and CO have been a clear wake-up call to me, an urgent motivator to become more active in local politics and join/donate more time and money to hunting and wildlife conservation organizations. It will take active engagement from hunters across the political spectrum to win the day.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Even though the commish put spring bear hunting on the shelf for now, Washington still has a two bear limit per hunter statewide.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Read what @wllm said, you have to control the narrative on these issues. You control the narrative, have the better message, the money will follow. So will the support of the voters.

Are you telling me that with over 100 years of successful wildlife management, wildlife restoration, wildlife conservation, etc. that the best message that the Conservatives can come up with is, "smoke a pack a day"?

Sounds like we need more social media hunter influencers. But then again some people are against that. Seems complicated: spread the message but do it… how?

People on both sides accuse people on the other of having all the same beliefs. That’s too simplistic, but makes life more manageable.

I’m not a smoke a pack a day guy, but your reality in Wyoming isn’t the same reality as on the left coast, like Oregon. If you lived in Oregon you’d have a different take on things.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Plus, the way you beat the wealthy in the money game is collectively.

“Collectively” has been happening in another sense—at the ballot box.